Malcolm N. Shaw. International Law

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

the protection of human rights 323

Discrimination Against Women was established under article 22 of the

1979 Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination

Against Women.

317

This Convention is implemented by means of states’

reports. It is composed of twenty-three experts serving in individual

capacities for four-year terms. It held its ﬁrst regular session in October

1982 and at its second session examined the reports of seven states parties

regarding measures taken to comply with the terms of the Convention. It

reports annually to the UN General Assembly through ECOSOC.

318

The

Committeehas provided guidelines to states parties on reporting, whereby

initial reports are intended to be detailed and comprehensive with sub-

sequent reports being of an updating nature.

319

Since 1990, subsequent

reports are examined ﬁrst by a pre-sessional working group. Following

discussion of a report, the Committee provides concluding comments.

The Committee, in addition to hearing states’ reports, may make sugges-

tions and general recommendations, which are included in the report.

320

Since 1997 the process of adopting a general recommendation is preceded

by an open dialogue between the Committee, non-governmental organ-

isations and others regarding the topic of the general recommendation

1996/6. There is also an individual petition procedure by which complaints are considered

by a Working Group on Communications which then reports to the Commission. The

Commission in turn reports to ECOSOC.

317

This came into force in 1981. See R. Jacobson, ‘The Committee on the Elimination of

Discrimination against Women’ in Alston, United Nations and Human Rights, p. 444; A.

Byrnes, ‘The “Other” Human Rights Body: The Work of the Committee on the Elim-

ination of Discrimination Against Women’, 14 Yale Journal of International Law, 1989,

p. 1; M. Galey, ‘International Enforcement of Women’s Rights’, 6 HRQ, 1984, p. 463, and

M. Wadstein, ‘Implementation of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms

of Discrimination against Women’, 6 NQHR, 1988, p. 5. See also R. Cook, ‘Women’s

International Human Rights Law’, 15 HRQ, 1993, p. 230; Human Rights of Women (ed. R.

Cook), Philadelphia, 1994; M. Freeman and A. Fraser, ‘Women’s Human Rights’ in Herlin

and Hargrove, Human Rights: An Agenda for the Next Century, p. 103; Rehman, Interna-

tional Human Rights Law, chapter 13; Steiner, Alston and Goodman, International Human

Rights, pp. 175 and 541; J. Morsink, ‘Women’s Rights in the Universal Declaration’, 13

HRQ, 1991, p. 229; H. Charlesworth and C. Chinkin, The Boundaries of International Law:

A Feminist Analysis, Manchester, 2000, and M. Bustelo, ‘The Committee on the Elimina-

tion of Discrimination against Women at the Crossroads’ in Alston and Crawford, Future,

p. 79.

318

See articles 17–21 of the Convention and the ﬁrst Report of the Committee, A/38/45, and

UN Chronicle, November 1983, pp. 65–86.

319

See CEDAW/C/7Rev.3 and with regard to reports submitted from 1 January 2003,

www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/guidelines.PDF.

320

Article 21.

324 international law

and a discussion of a draft prepared by a Committee member. General

Recommendation No. 5 called upon states parties to make more use of

‘temporary special measures such as positive action, preferential treat-

ment or quota systems to advance women’s integration into education,

the economy, politics and employment’, while General Recommenda-

tion No. 8 provided that states parties should take further measures to

ensure to women, on equal terms with men and without discrimina-

tion, the opportunity to represent their government at the international

level.

321

General Recommendation No. 12 called upon states parties to

include in their reports information on measures taken to deal with vio-

lence against women, while General Recommendation No. 14 called for

measures to be taken to eradicate the practice of female circumcision.

General Recommendation No. 19 (1992) dealt at some length with the

problem of violence against women in general and speciﬁc terms, and

General Recommendation No. 21 is concerned with equality in mar-

riage and family relations.

322

In 1999, the Committee adopted a General

Recommendation No. 24 on women and health. General Recommen-

dation No. 25 was adopted in 2004 and concerned temporary special

measures.

323

The Committee, however, met only for one session of two weeks a

year, which was clearly inadequate. This was increased to two sessions a

year from 1997.

324

An Optional Protocol adopted in 1999 and in force

as from December 2000 allows for the right of individual petition pro-

vided a number of conditions are met, including the requirement for

the exhaustion of domestic remedies. In addition, the Protocol creates

an inquiry procedure enabling the Committee to initiate inquiries into

situations of grave or systematic violations of women’s rights where it

has received reliable information of grave or systematic violations by a

state party of rights established in the Convention.

325

In recent years,

the importance of women’s rights has received greater recognition. The

Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action adopted in 1993 em-

phasised that the human rights of women should be brought into the

321

A/43/38 (1988).

322

HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1, 1994, pp. 72 ff.

323

HRI/GEN/1/Rev.7, 2004, p. 282.

324

Although the Committee met exceptionally for three sessions during 2002 to deal with

backlog reports. However, see General Assembly resolution 60/230 concering the exten-

sion of meeting time in 2005 and 2006.

325

See, for example, for an earlier view, R. Cook, ‘The Elimination of Sexual Apartheid:

Prospects for the Fourth World Conference on Women’, ASIL Issue Papers on World

Conferences, Washington, 1995, pp. 48 ff.

the protection of human rights 325

mainstream of UN system-wide activity and that women’s rights should

be regularly and systematically addressed throughout the UN bodies and

mechanisms.

326

In the light of this, the ﬁfth meeting of Chairpersons of

Human Rights Treaty Bodies in 1994 agreed that the enjoyment of the

human rights of women by each treaty body within the competence of

its mandate should be closely monitored. Each of the treaty bodies took

steps to examine its guidelines with this in mind.

327

It should also be

noted, for example, that the Special Rapporteur on Torture was called

upon by the Commission on Human Rights in 1994 to examine ques-

tions concerning torture directed disproportionately or primarily against

women.

328

In addition, the General Assembly adopted a Declaration on

the Elimination of Violence Against Women in February 1994,

329

and a

Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, its Causes and Conse-

quences was appointed in 1994.

330

The International Labour Organisation

established the promotion of equality of opportunity and treatment of

menandwomeninemploymentasapriorityiteminitsprogramme

and budget for 1994/5.

331

The Committee on the Rights of the Child

has also discussed the issue of the ‘girl-child’ and the question of child

prostitution.

332

326

See Part II, Section 3, 32 ILM, 1993, p. 1678. See also the Beijing Conference 1995,

Cook, ‘Elimination of Sexual Apartheid’; the Beijing plus 5 process, see General Assembly

resolution 55/71. In 2000, the General Assembly adopted resolution S-23/3 containing a

Political Declaration and a statement on further actions and initiatives to implement the

Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action.

327

See HRI/MC/1995/2. See also the Report of the Expert Group Meeting on the Devel-

opment of Guidelines for the Integration of Gender Perspectives into Human Rights

Activities and Programmes, E/CN.4/1996/105, 1995. This called inter alia for the use of

gender-inclusive language in human rights instruments and standards, the identiﬁcation,

collection and use of gender-disaggregated data, gender-sensitive interpretation of human

rights mechanisms and education and the promotion of a system-wide co-ordination and

collaboration on the human rights of women within the UN.

328

See resolution 1994/37. See also the Report of the Special Rapporteur of January 1995,

E/CN.4/1995/34, p. 8.

329

Resolution48/104,see 33 ILM, 1994, p. 1049. Note also the adoption of the Inter-American

Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence Against Women

in June 1994, ibid., p. 1534 and the March 2002 Joint Declaration by the Special Rappor-

teur on women’s rights of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the Special

Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, its Causes and its Consequencesof the UN Com-

mission on HumanRights,and the Special Rapporteuronthe Rights of Women in Africa of

the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights which called for theelimination of

violence and discrimination against women: see www.cidh.org/declaration.women.htm.

330

See E/CN.4/2003/75.

331

E/CN.4/Sub.2/1994/5, p. 6.

332

See further below, p. 331.

326 international law

The Committee Against Torture

333

The prohibition of torture is contained in a wide variety of human rights

334

and humanitarian law treaties,

335

and has become part of customary in-

ternational law. Indeed it is now established as a norm of jus cogens.

336

Issues concerning torture have come before a number of human rights

organs, such as the Human Rights Committee,

337

the European Court of

Human Rights

338

and the International Criminal Tribunal on the Former

Yugoslavia.

339

The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or

Degrading Treatment or Punishment was signed on 10 December

1984 and entered into force in 1987. It built particularly upon the

333

Seee.g.M.NowakandE.McArther,The UN Convention Against Torture: A Commentary,

Oxford, 2008; A. Byrnes, ‘The Committee Against Torture’ in Alston, United Nations

and Human Rights, p. 509; R. Bank, ‘Country-Oriented Procedures under the Conven-

tion against Torture: Towards a New Dynamism’ in Alston and Crawford, Future, p. 145;

Rehman, International Human Rights Law, chapter 15; N. Rodley, TheTreatmentofPris-

oners under International Law, 2nd edn, Oxford, 1999; A. Boulesbaa, The UN Convention

on Torture and Prospects for Enforcement, The Hague, 1999; M. Evans, ‘Getting to Grips

with Torture’, 51 ICLQ, 2002, p. 365; J. Burgers and H. Danelius, The United Nations

Convention against Torture, Boston, 1988; Meron, Human Rights in International Law,pp.

126–30, 165–6, 511–15; S. Ackerman, ‘Torture and Other Forms of Cruel and Unusual

Punishment in International Law’, 11 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 1978, p.

653; Amnesty International, Torture in the Eighties, London, 1984; A. Dormenval, ‘UN

Committee Against Torture: Practice and Perspectives’, 8 NQHR, 1990, p. 26; Z. Haquani,

‘La Convention des Nations Unies Contre la Torture’, 90 RGDIP, 1986, p. 127; N. Lerner,

‘The UN Convention on Torture’, 16 Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, 1986, p. 126, and R.

St J. Macdonald, ‘International Prohibitions against Torture and other Forms of Similar

Treatment or Punishment’ in International Law at a Time of Perplexity (ed. Y. Dinstein),

Dordrecht, 1987, p. 385.

334

See e.g. article 5 of the Universal Declaration; article 7 of the Civil and Political Rights

Covenant; article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights; article 5 of the Inter-

American Convention on Human Rights; article 5 of the African Charter on Human and

Peoples’ Rights; the UN Convention against Torture, 1984; the European Convention

on the Prevention of Torture, 1987 and the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and

Punish Torture, 1985.

335

See e.g. the four Geneva Red Cross Conventions, 1949 and the two Additional Protocols

of 1977.

336

See e.g. Ex parte Pinochet (No. 3) [2000] 1 AC 147, 198; 119 ILR, p. 135 and the Furundˇzija

case, 121 ILR, pp. 213, 260–2. See also Al-Adsani v. UK, European Court of Human Rights,

Judgment of 21 November 2001, para. 61; 123 ILR, pp. 24, 41–2.

337

See e.g. Vuolanne v. Finland, 265/87, 96 ILR, p. 649, and generally Joseph et al., Interna-

tional Covenant,chapter9.

338

See e.g. Selmouni v. France, Judgment of 28 July 1999.

339

See e.g. the Delali´c case, IT-96-21, Judgment of 16 November 1998.

the protection of human rights 327

Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from being subjected to

Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punish-

ment adopted by the General Assembly in 1975.

340

Other relevant instru-

ments preceding the Convention were the Standard Minimum Rules for

the Treatment of Prisoners, 1955, the Code of Conduct for Law Enforce-

ment Ofﬁcers, 1979 (article 5) and the Principles of Medical Ethics, 1982

(Principles 1 and 2).

341

Torture is deﬁned in article 1 of the Convention against Torture to

mean:

[a]ny act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is

intentionally inﬂicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him

or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he

or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or

intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on

discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inﬂicted by or at

the instigation of or with the consent or the acquiescence of a public ofﬁcial

or other person acting in an ofﬁcial capacity. It does not include pain or

suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

The states parties to the Convention are under duties inter alia to take

measures to prevent such activities in territories under their jurisdiction

(article 2), not to return a person to a country where he may be subjected

to torture (article 3), to make torture a criminal offence and establish

jurisdiction over it (articles 4 and 5),

342

toprosecuteorextraditepersons

chargedwithtorture(article7)andtoprovidearemedyforpersons

tortured (article 14).

The Committee against Torture was established under Part II of

the Convention against Torture, 1984 and commenced work in 1987.

It consists of ten independent experts. In an interesting comment on

the proliferation of international human rights committees and the

dangers of inconsistencies developing, article 17(2) provides that in

nominating experts, states parties should ‘bear in mind the usefulness

of nominating persons who are also members of the Human Rights

Committee’.

340

General Assembly resolution 3452 (XXX).

341

Note also the Principles on the Protection of Persons under Detention or Imprisonment

adopted by the General Assembly in 1989. See generally Human Rights: A Compilation of

International Instruments, United Nations, New York, vol. I (First Part), 1993, Section H.

342

See, as far as the UK is concerned, sections 134 and 135 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

328 international law

The Committee receives states’ reports (article 19), has an inter-state

complaint competence (article 21) and may hear individual communi-

cations (article 22). In both the latter cases, it is necessary that the state

or states concerned should have made a declaration accepting the com-

petence of the Committee.

343

Article 20 of the Convention provides that

if the Committee receives ‘reliable evidence’ that torture is being sys-

tematically practised in the territory of a state party, it may invite the

state in question to co-operate in examining the evidence. The Com-

mittee may designate one or more of its members to make a conﬁden-

tial inquiry. In doing so, it shall seek the co-operation of the state con-

cerned and, with the latter’s agreement, such an inquiry may include a

visit to its territory. The Committee will transmit the ﬁndings of the in-

quiry to the state, together with appropriate comments or suggestions.

The proceedings up to this point are to be conﬁdential, but the Com-

mittee may, after consulting the state, decide to include a summary ac-

count of the results in its annual report. This additional, if cautiously

phrased, power may provide the Committee with a signiﬁcant role.

344

should be noted that states parties have the ability to ‘opt out’ of this

procedure if they so wish at the time of signature or ratiﬁcation, or

accession.

345

The conduct of the reporting procedure bears much resemblance to the

practice of the UN Human Rights Committee.

346

Guidelines have been is-

sued for states parties and the discussions with state representatives are

held with a view to establishing a constructive dialogue. Many prob-

lems facing other treaty bodies also appear with regard to the Committee

against Torture, for example, overdue reports and problems relating toim-

plementation of the Convention generally. The Committee may also make

comments on states’ reports in the form of concluding observations

347

and

may issue general comments.

348

Interimmeasuresofprotectionmayalso

343

See e.g. the Committee’s report of Spring 2002, A/57/44, p. 82.

344

Note e.g. the report of the Committee on Sri Lanka in this context, A/57/44, p. 59 (2002).

See also E. Zoller, ‘Second Session of the UN Commission against Torture’, 7 NQHR,

1989, p. 250.

345

Article 28(1). See e.g. A/57/44, p. 81.

346

As at May 2006, the Committee had received a total of 194 reports, with 192 overdue: see

A/61/44, p. 5 (2006).

347

See e.g. A/61/44, pp. 6 ff. (2006).

348

To date only one has been issued on the implementation of article 3 concerning

deportation to states where there is substantial reason to fear torture: see A/53/44,

annex IX.

the protection of human rights 329

be granted under Rule 108(1) and this is monitored by the rapporteurs

for new complaints and interim measures.

349

The ﬁrst three cases before the Committee under article 22 were ad-

missibility decisions concerning Argentinian legislation exempting junior

military ofﬁcers from liability for acts of torture committed during the

1976–83 period and its compatibility with the Torture Convention.

350

The Committee noted that there existed a general rule of international

law obliging all states to take effective measures to prevent and punish

acts of torture. However, the Convention took effect only from its date

of entry (26 June 1987) and could not be applied retroactively to cover

the enactment of legislation prior to that date. Therefore, the commu-

nications were inadmissible. However, the Committee did criticise the

Argentinian legislation and stated that Argentina was morally bound to

provide a remedy to the victims of torture.

351

In May 2002, the Com-

mittee revised its rules of procedure and established the function of a

Rapporteur for follow-up of decisions on complaints submitted under

article 22.

352

The Committee has held that where substantial grounds

exist for believing that the applicant would be in danger of being sub-

jected to torture, the expulsion or return of the applicant by the state

party concerned to the state in which he might be tortured would con-

stitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention.

353

The Committee has

also emphasised that the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds

that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. The risk need not be highly

probable, but it must be personal and present. While the Commit-

tee does give considerable weight to ﬁndings of fact made by the or-

gans of the state party concerned, it is not bound by these and has

the power of free assessment of the facts arising in the circumstances

of each case. It has been particularly underlined that the prohibition

enshrined in article 3 of the Convention was an absolute one.

354

It has

also been noted that where complaints of torture are made during court

349

Ibid., pp. 82–3. See also A/57/44, p. 219.

350

OR, MM and MS v. Argentina, communications nos. 1–3/1988. Decisions of 23 November

1989. See 5 Interights Bulletin, 1990, p. 12.

351

The Committee has, however, held that where the effect of the violations continues after

the date that the Convention comes into force for the state concerned and where those

effects constitute a breach of the Convention, then the matter can be considered: see e.g.

AA v. Azerbaijan, A/61/44, pp. 255, 259 (2006).

352

See e.g. A/61/44, p. 86 (2006).

353

Khan v. Canada, CAT/C/13/D/15/1994.

354

See Dadar v. Canada, A/61/44, pp. 233 ff. (2006).

330 international law

proceedings, it is desirable that they be elucidated by means of inde-

pendent proceedings.

355

A complaint must be submitted by the alleged

victim, or by a close relative or a duly authorised representative, and

must ﬁrst be declared admissible. Requirements include that the mat-

ter must not be before another tribunal, that domestic remedies have

been exhausted and that the complaint must reach a ‘basic level of

substantiation’.

356

An Optional Protocol to the Convention to enable the Committee

through a new Subcommittee on Prevention to conduct regular visits

to places of detention and make recommendations to states parties was

adopted by the General Assembly in December 2002 and came into force

in 2006. Under the Protocol, states parties must establish a ‘national pre-

ventive mechanism’ for the prevention of torture at the domestic level.

Visits by the Subcommittee and the national preventive mechanism to

any place under the state party’s jurisdiction and control where persons

are, or may be, deprived of their liberty must be permitted by the state

concerned.

357

In 1985, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights appointed

a Special Rapporteur on Torture to examine questions relevant to torture

and to seek and receive credible and reliable information on such ques-

tions and to respond to that information without delay.

358

The work of

the rapporteur includes the sending of urgent appeals and an increasing

number of country visits. He is directed to co-operate closely with the

Committee against Torture.

359

The rapporteur also works with other UN

ofﬁcials. In 1994, for example, the rapporteur accompanied the Special

Rapporteur on Rwanda on a visit to that country, while later that year the

rapporteur accompanied the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Sum-

mary or Arbitrary Executions on a visit to Colombia.

360

The rapporteur

produces an annual report.

361

355

Parot v. Spain, CAT/C/14/D/6/1990.

356

RT v. Switzerland, A/61/44, pp. 249, 253 (2006). See also article 22 of the Convention and

Rule 107(b) of the Rules of Procedure.

357

See General Assembly resolution 57/199.

358

Resolution 1985/33.

359

See e.g. E. Zoller, ‘46th Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights’,

8(2) NQHR, 1990, pp. 140, 166.

360

See E/CN.4/1995/34, pp. 6–7. See also the European Convention on the Pre-

vention of Torture, below, p. 362, and the African guidelines on torture

adopted in 2002, www.achpr.org/english/communiques/communique32

en.html and

www.apt.ch/africa/rig/Robben20Island%20Guidelines.pdf.

361

See e.g. A/62/221 (2007).

the protection of human rights 331

The Committee on the Rights of the Child

362

The Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted by the General

Assembly on 20 November 1989.

363

It provides that in all actions concern-

ing children, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consider-

ation. A variety of rights are stipulated, including the inherent right to

life (article 6); the right to a name and to acquire a nationality (article 7);

the right to freedom of expression (article 13); the right to freedom of

thought, conscience and religion (article 14); the right not to be sub-

jected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy, family, home or

correspondence and the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable

standard of health (article 24).

States parties agree to take all appropriate measures to protect the child

from all forms of physical and mental violence (article 19) and from

economic exploitation (article 32) and the illicit use of drugs (article

33), and there are speciﬁc provisions relating to refugees and disabled

children. In addition, states parties agree to respect the rules of interna-

tional humanitarian law applicable to armed conﬂicts relevant to children

(article 38). This provision was one response to the use of children in the

Iran–Iraq war.

Article 43 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child provides for

the establishment of a Committee. This Committee, which was elected

in 1991, was originally composed of ten independent experts

364

and has

the competence to hear states’ reports (article 44). The Committee it-

self submits reports every two years to the General Assembly through

ECOSOC. The Committee can recommend to the General Assembly that

the Secretary-General be requested to undertake on its behalf studies on

362

See e.g. T. Buck, International Child Law, London, 2005; G. Lansdown, ‘The Reporting

Procedures under the Convention on the Rights of the Child’ in Alston and Crawford,

Future, p. 113; Rehman, International Human Rights Law, chapter 14; Revisiting Children’s

Rights: 10 Years of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (ed. D. Fottrell), The Hague,

2000; D. McGoldrick, ‘The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child’, 5 International

Journal of Law and the Family, 1991, p. 132; M. Santos Pais, ‘The Convention on the

Rights of the Child and the Work of the Committee’, 26 Israel Law Review, 1992, p. 16,

and Santos Pais, ‘Rights of Children and the Family’ in Herkin and Hargrove, Human

Rights:AnAgendafortheNextCentury, p. 183. See also G. Van Bueren, The International

Law on the Rights of the Child, Dordrecht, 1995, and The United Nations Convention on

the Rights of the Child (ed. S. Detrick), Dordrecht, 1992.

363

The Convention came into force on 2 September 1990. Note also the Declaration on the

Rights of the Child adopted by the General Assembly in resolution 1386 (XIV), 1959 and

the proclamation of 1979 as the International Year of the Child in resolution 31/169.

364

The membership has increased to eighteen.

332 international law

speciﬁc issues relating to the rights of the child, an innovation in the

functions of such treaty bodies, and it can make suggestions and general

recommendations (article 45). The Committee (like the Committee on

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) sets aside time for general discus-

sions on particular topics in accordance with Rule 75 of its provisional

rules of procedure. For example, at its second session in 1992, the Com-

mittee discussed the question of children in armed conﬂicts,

365

while at its

fourth session, the problem of the economic exploitation of children was

discussed.

366

A general discussion on the ‘girl-child’ was held at the eighth

session of the Committee in 1995,

367

and one on the administration of

juvenile justice at the ninth session.

368

As part of the general reporting process, the Committee adopted an

urgent action procedure at its second session. Provided that the state con-

cerned has ratiﬁed the Convention, that the situation is serious and there

is a risk of further violations, the Committee may send a communica-

tion to the state ‘in a spirit of dialogue’ and may request the provision of

additional information or suggest a visit.

369

At its fourth session, the Com-

mittee established a working group to study ways and means whereby the

urgent action procedure could be pursued effectively.

370

The Committee

has produced a set of guidelines concerning states’ reports

371

andapre-

sessional working group considers these reports and draws up a list of

issues needing further clariﬁcation which is sent to the state concerned.

372

As is the case with other reporting mechanisms, the state whose report is

being considered by the Committee is invited to send representatives to

the appropriate meetings. After the process is completed, the Commit-

tee issues Concluding Observations in which both the positive aspects

of the report considered and the problems identiﬁed are noted, together

365

A/49/41, pp. 94 ff. This led to a recommendation to the General Assembly to request the

Secretary-General to undertake a special study on the means to protect children in armed

conﬂicts: see CRC/C/SR.72, p. 2 and resolution 48/157. This led to the adoption of the

Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conﬂict, General Assembly

resolution 54/263, 25 May 2000, which entered into force on 12 February 2002. Note that

the question of the protection of children in armed conﬂicts was referred to in the Vienna

Declaration and Programme of Action, 1993, Part II, B, 4: see 32 ILM, 1993, p. 1680. See

also G. Van Bueren, ‘The International Legal Protection of Children in Armed Conﬂicts’,

43 ICLQ, 1994, p. 809, and M. Happold, Child Soldiers in International Law, Manchester,

2005.

366

A/49/41, pp. 99 ff.

367

See CRC/C/38, p. 47. This led to the adoption of the Optional Protocol on the Question

of the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography: see General Assembly

resolution 54/263 of 25 May 2000 which entered into force on 18 January 2002.

368

See CRC/C/43, p. 64.

369

See CRC/C/SR.42, p. 2 and A/49/41, pp. 69–71.

370

Ibid.

371

See CRC/C/5.

372

See e.g. CRC/C/121, 2002.